just wanted to say first post!! and this forum is awesome. I have been reading through this for about a month, and I have figured out the exact PC i want to build. So, after tons of price comparisons and product selecting I have come across a site that builds gaming PC's also. I have read some people saying cyberpower sucks...so if you want to also inform me of this, please do so with a reason so that I may make an informed decision. Please try not to dissuade me by saying: "building your own is awesome!!" I have done it before, and it's nothing special.

Anyways the point of this excersize is because it seems cyberpower is making it even CHEAPER than me building with much better parts! Crazy, i know. I'm still looking for the catch :S

all help would be appreciated. Sorry if I'm direct, I don't intend to be rude. I just want to make it clear so you guys can help me better :D

to build or to be lazy (not really,)
specs: mix purchase between ncix, best direct

looks like its only a $51.00 difference after putting these together. only difference is processor is 2nd gen 2500k (which i lean more towards, cause better OC) and older mobo (but still gen 3, so pci 3.0 and IB) asrock extreme gen 4still better)

i might just build myself cause if i get nailed with customs, it`ll be much higher and i`d rather deal with each part seperately. also, i found a 6950 reference card, to me that is a plus (Who knows what they`ll put in). what yall think? thinking out loud here

they also gimme like mouse and keyboard (look pretty good), but whateva. i use an mx perfromace already, and i wanna get they logitech solar keyboard thin...so im not counting that

Build yourself.. Not necessarily cos it's better but more because it's easy and you save the money / have a little more to spend on parts.

Can't you just price-match everything on NCIX then have 1 shipment?

If boot times aren't a big deal to you (the seagate drive is quite fast (for hdd's)) then I suggest you plough the SSD into a better GPU.. 670? 680?
Depends what you want... I notice the difference with an SSD on the load times of stuff... but would gladly sacrifice it for a 670 over my current 560Ti.. Just food for though

If you think you'll ever go dual GPU then I definitely suggest Nvidia... AMD are renowned for being slow with drivers and x-fire profile releases
on that note if you think you'll ever use dual GPU's, go for a 850 watt psu.. if not 650 will be enough and save you a few bucks.

other than those points (which are only opinion) all looks good and a solid build.

on the SSD's.. basically, yes..
Boot times and the load times of whichever programs you have on the drive..
Your machine will boot very fast, your programs/games will load fast.. thats it..
You'll still have to wait for onlines servers to load maps - start rounds etc.. and there is no other benefit in game
While this is important for some people, for me I'd trade boot times for a GPU thats twice as powerful as what I have now. ( and a 670 will be about twice as powerful and about $400 ish(the cost of the ssd difference))

While I don't know your experience or experiences with nvidia and AMD cards, I've had both fairly recent and old versions of both. (I'll not get into the really old cos they are not relevant.
While with the 5XXX/ 4xx generation I would pick the AMD.. though again driver support wasn't better (in my opinion) the Radions were far superior in price, performance and power, heat etc

In the 6xxx / 5xx.. it's a throw up between them in the price-performance.. Radions still better in the power/heat

If your buying an new pc now.. why get a last generation card?
Nvidia have shown with the 680 (and on Thursday the 670, there was a leaked review) that the newest generation beat the AMD's hands-down in every way..
Check out the 680 / 690 reviews and the 670 on Thursday..

Looks like the 670 is going to be only slightly behind x-fired 6950's in raw performance and have better power heat etc as well(per performance at least)

If your dead set against the nvidia's then a 7950?

I'm not against AMD and if they lift their performance to that of the current nvidia's with less buggy drivers then I would consider them / or just plain go for them if good enough (like the 5xxx series was)..
until they do they are second fiddle for me..

On the ivy vs sandy chips.. the ivy will oc very easily to 4.5GHZ, it will have lower temps and power draw.. but when you raise the voltage higher (think it was 1.3v) in order to push the clocks, the heat gets too much...
which is better for you depends on if you want a stable 24/7 oc in the 4.5 ghz range or if you really want to push it.. in which case the sandy chip is better.

as for IB vs SB, i was hoping to push a stable build @ 4.7ghz...but i dont know what gains there are, and when it begins diminishing. i do like easy OC that are very stable with low power consumption and lower temp. IB sounds impressive in this regard. since its the same architecture, but improved...shouldnt it in theory be faster at 4.5ghz then SB @ 4.7?

also, are you referring to the gtx 680/690/ 670?

i had a really bad experience with nvidia driver in the past on desktops (4yars ago) and even worse experience on laptops and their stupid mo optimus tech.

that aside, i use this greatly to always pull great value vs incremental performance at much more expensive prices.

the way i see it, if the hd 6870 is within range...but at like 100$ less, its a great buy until i upgrade in the future. future proofing is so cliche, in that after two years most try to move onto something newer and spending so much for it to last for xx number of years never seems to work. i dunno i maybe i overthink, but i do look for value on my investment.

your right, 670 seem very impressive if its $400 range. ditto on waiting

been reading a little more, anyone experience stuttering issues on current 680 cards?